Public Hearing - Proposed Cell Tower at Veteran's Park

[Tim Tenhave]

Please see the public hearing notice:

http://www.merrimacknh.gov/publichearings

More details are here:

http://www.merrimacknh.gov/sites/merrim ... %20par.pdf

This is not a simple cell tower. It is intended to be a 4G tower providing wide band wifi to both mobile and home users. It could support traditional 3G/cell usage.

The Council is interested in hearing from the residents on this issue. It involves a tower on Town property. The tower owner would pay rent for the land. The Council has made no decision on this tower. We want to hear from our neighbors.

If the Council chose to move forward with the tower, it would follow a zoning/planning process.

Tim

[Nat Fairbanks]

I'm sure the questions will come up, but when does the lease term start? They are clear that rent does not begin being paid until the tower is operational, but it seems the lease begins before that. One of their slides indicates the town could sign the lease in January of 2009. I think they mean January 2010.

The memo dated 10/28/09 on page 4 indicates the lease would have a 5 year term with 3 options to extend, but the slides on page 18 of the pdf indicate the lease will have 4 options to extend (otherwise the same terms).

I would imagine others know if the lease terms and rates are reasonable, and abutters would be much more concerned than I about impact on the area but I think it's a reasonable idea.

-Nat

[Tom Mahon]

Nat,

Thanks for taking the time to look at the tower information. No terms have been agreed to yet. They owners want to through the preliminaries before there is any discussion on the final terms of the lease. You are correct. This is standard boiler plate for this including the lease cost.

[Pat McGrath]

I live about a 1/2 mile south of the tower and really have limited cell phone signal strength. So if the proposed tower addresses that need, then I am interested. I think it will from what I have read on line, but I am not an engineer.

Pat McGrath

[M@]

Topographically that looks like a pretty stupid place to put a cell tower - pretty much level with a lake in very hilly part of the state.

On the new mall property, about 1.5 miles west of this one there are a couple towers already.

Far more logical is the hill that Cummings Circle and Scott Dr. ascend. Possibly the power transmissions lines in that area.

Possibly it's just "range" to 101a: But I've been on the Planning Board during these kind of meetings - and a lot of times it has to do with getting another tower up so a specific carrier can get the top rung and make more money due to not having to pay for spots on existing towers.

The engineering and software used to do the calculations is complicated enough that there are many places in the workflow to introduce values that will produce the exact results you want to demonstrate.

M@

[andysinnh]

Someday - maybe SOMEDAY - they'll put a tower near the NW part of town - aka "The Dead Zone"..... There was a rumor they were installing a temporary test tower on Bragdon sledding hill off of 101, but it never materialized.......

andy

[TonyRichardson]

Considering the cost and effort to put in a cell tower, whatever company it is would not pursue it without an expectation of return on that investment.
If the location might be considered less than ideal by some on here, there are factors involved about which we have no information.


The NIMBY people will protest of course, like they always do.
But they will also complain about the cruddy service, which they fight against correcting.

The wireless services for both voice and data are penetrating further into our lives every day/month/year.
The wireless service in New England is substandard compared to every other part of the country I have been, primarily because of coverage and capacity.
Coverage is the facet people tend to focus on, but as the ratio of voice to data usage changes, capacity becomes more important.

Twenty years ago, cell phones were still a novelty.
Now they have become a necessity for many.
Computer penetration into the home is reported to be over 80%, I haven't seen figures but I would expect cell phone penetration to be much higher.
Land lines provide one or two lines to a home, while now it seems everyone over the age of 10 has a cell phone in a family.

Replacing or augmenting a land line with multiple cells requires capacity...
Increasing capacity and/or coverage means both updating current equipment and emplacing new equipment and towers.


If the town can get some revenue from leasing unused land to the provider I am for it.

Use the revenue from this to help hold down taxes, coupled with some spending reductions.
In hard economic times like this, that would be a good and reasonable thing to do.

[andysinnh]

In this hilly terrain, it's not so much capacity as it is coverage. Location, Location, Location....

[M@]

The NIMBY people will protest of course, like they always do.
But they will also complain about the cruddy service, which they fight against correcting.

At some point the "NIMBY" people have a valid point. Zoning exists in part to protect property values. Certain development decreases property value.

M@

[Nat Fairbanks]

I'm sure the questions will come up, but when does the lease term start? They are clear that rent does not begin being paid until the tower is operational, but it seems the lease begins before that. One of their slides indicates the town could sign the lease in January of 2009. I think they mean January 2010.

One question related to this point. What protection does the town have that the tower location will be built out and paying rent? I'm sure it's just paranoid thinking but I'd hate to see a Shaws like situation develop for cell towers. Lock up the best/least expensive tower sites with 20-25 year leases that don't require them to pay rent until a tower is operational and don't require them to actually get a tower operational in a reasonable time frame. Maybe I'm too paranoid but we do have an example of that with supermarkets in town.

-Nat

[Jamie MacFarland]

I'm sure the questions will come up, but when does the lease term start? They are clear that rent does not begin being paid until the tower is operational, but it seems the lease begins before that. One of their slides indicates the town could sign the lease in January of 2009. I think they mean January 2010.

One question related to this point. What protection does the town have that the tower location will be built out and paying rent? I'm sure it's just paranoid thinking but I'd hate to see a Shaws like situation develop for cell towers. Lock up the best/least expensive tower sites with 20-25 year leases that don't require them to pay rent until a tower is operational and don't require them to actually get a tower operational in a reasonable time frame. Maybe I'm too paranoid but we do have an example of that with supermarkets in town.

-Nat

We need Cell phone towers no question about it. However, there is nothing wrong with neighbors asking questions and demanding it gets done right. Tony Richardson may be that NIMBY someday.

Also, the former Maddens property is halfway constructed, and I if I am not mistaken, construction has ceased, and the developer of the property can not finish the project. I believe its foreclosed on and going up for auction? This could sit this way for a long time. What a shame. So much for the "Train Station" look. Who knows, it could be used car lot now.

[RBarnes]

It has always bugged me how some people will ignore facts and shoot others down simply because of location. They quickly raise the NIMBY argument and ignore all facts brought up.

If someone has a valid argument then location of where they live should have NOTHING to do with it. Likewise if someone is simply a NIMBY and arguing because they don't want something in their backyard then it should be apparent that their argument is very thin and their facts can be shot down. Dismissing their arguments only shows that those opposed to them cannot debate so they need to argue NIMBY in hopes of getting others to ignore the facts as well. We see it time and time again here in Merrimack. When are we going to wake up and actually start looking at ALL the facts regardless of who brings them up?

[andysinnh]

Here's an article from the Telegraph today about the proposed tower http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/482 ... imack.html . Looksl ike it's the http://www.clearwire.com/ company I've seen advertised on various web pages for wifi service, typically in more urban areas. Interesting they're looking at expanding here. The article also mentions they're "eyeing another site in Merrimack". Anyone know what that second site might be? And is it really true that the tower would provide 3G and 4G service along with normal WiFi signals? Wasn't clear from the article, but implied in Tim's initial post of this thread...

andy

[Nat Fairbanks]

The article also mentions they're "eyeing another site in Merrimack". Anyone know what that second site might be?

The material Clearwire sent the town mentions an alternative site on Fidelity's property.

-Nat

[Tom Mahon]

Andy,

Clear Wire is proposing 3G and 4G capability.